RE: Comments on ECC draft
"Dominikus Scherkl" <Dominikus.Scherkl@glueckkanja.com> Tue, 24 September 2002 07:51 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19329 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 03:51:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8O7kf114243 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.glueckkanja.com (mail.glueckkanja.com [62.8.243.3]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8O7kcv14233 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: Comments on ECC draft
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:46:28 +0200
Message-ID: <2F89C141B5B67645BB56C0385375788231C715@guk1d002.glueckkanja.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on ECC draft
thread-index: AcJjTjiZaGHl8GkrR6Gx2zu+saQuiQATRJJQ
From: Dominikus Scherkl <Dominikus.Scherkl@glueckkanja.com>
To: Len Sassaman <rabbi@abditum.com>, ietf-openpgp@imc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id g8O7kfv14239
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> I'd like to bring this up again before the next revision of > the draft. How close are we to consensus on the ECC semantics? Really? Indeed I thought there isn't anybody interessted in this... what a very positive surprise. > On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 hal@finney.org wrote: > > > We have been looking at the ECC issue and have a few comments on the > > proposed draft by Dominikus Scherkl and Christoph Fausak. > > > > Broadly speaking it looks very good. As the IEEE has changed it's proposed standard P1363 to allow for an additionaly point-compression method with no patents on it (I worked hardly on this), we should have no problem with this topic. But I don't know about the current status of other pending patents. I will soon submit an updated version of my (long ago expired) draft soon... > I'm not against ECC in OpenPGP, but given how close 2440bis is to last > call, perhaps the ECC specification could go in a companion RFC? This way is what I intended with my draft. And I think there's no need to hurry, too, but > > OpenSSL now has ECC in it, and there is an ECC in TLS draft > > being proposed > That's not certain yet, [and the TLS draft is] > ... by the same group who did the OpenSSL implementation. do we realy need to be the last to add ECC to our standard ? -- Dominikus Scherkl dominikus.scherkl@glueckkanja.com
- Comments on ECC draft hal
- RE: Comments on ECC draft Dominikus Scherkl
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Bodo Moeller
- RE: Comments on ECC draft Jivsov, Andrey
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Bodo Moeller
- Re: Comments on ECC draft David Hopwood
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Len Sassaman
- Re: Comments on ECC draft David Shaw
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Peter Gutmann
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Bodo Moeller
- RE: Comments on ECC draft Dominikus Scherkl
- Re: Comments on ECC draft Dominikus Scherkl
- Why ECC? Rodney Thayer
- Re: Why ECC? Hironobu SUZUKI
- RE: Comments on ECC draft Dominikus Scherkl